"Atheism is not merely the denial of a dogma. It is the reversal of a subconscious assumption in the soul..." - Chesterton
"We do not really face two rival versions of Christianity. We face Christianity on the one hand and, on the other hand, some other religion that selectively uses Christian words, but is not Christianity." - J. Gresham Machen

The Story of Zacchaeus

My Latest Childrens' Book

Alberta Evangelism

About Me

More About Me

What I believe:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
I believe he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
I believe he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
I believe he descended to the grave and on the third day he rose again.
I believe he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
I believe he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.
I believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. I believe the Bible is the word of God, without error or contradiction.
I believe God is sovereign over all the universe; omnipotent and omniscient in all things. I believe that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. I believe that pretty much covers it.

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Arrogant and Evil

I have written before, in various posts, of what I call, "cultural arrogance," or "anachronistic arrogance." By it I mean the tendency, mostly of those who might label themselves as, "progressive," to consider themselves as somehow superior, in a moral or intellectual way, to those whom they would consider backwards, either in less advanced cultures of our day, or less progressive times throughout history.

This attitude manifests itself in regard, for instance, to racism for example, where a modern progressive might criticize the slavery of a couple of centuries ago as if they would have known and acted better had they been a member of that society.

It shows today in the attitude of certain western churches in matters of sexual morality. The vast majority of African Christians object to the growing western movement to normalize homosexual sexual activity and bless its unions. But more, "progressive" westerners consider these people backward savages, not nearly enlightened as they.

It showed in the eugenics movement, popular among liberals of the early twentieth century, who seemed to consider certain handicapped people as somehow less human than they, and therefore in need of elimination from our society.

It even shows more recently in the call for abortions as a means to reduce the human carbon footprint. It seems fair to me that these people, if they are so concerned about reducing population, should think about eliminating themselves from the equation as a first gesture. But no, as in much of the "green" movement, it's always others who are asked to make the sacrifice.

But now, it seems to me, this attitude of superiority has reared its ugly head in a new and particularly sinister way.

A major trial of a vaginal microbicide has produced no evidence that its use reduces the risk of HIV infection in women.

It was tested in a trial involving 9,385 women in four African countries.The risk of HIV infection was not significantly different among women supplied with the gel than in women given a placebo gel.

Lead researcher Dr Sheena McCormack, of the Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study, said: "This result is disheartening.

Professor Jonathan Weber, from Imperial College London, who also took part in the study, said: "It is unfortunate that this microbicide is ineffective at preventing HIV infection, but it's still vital for us as scientists to continue to look for new ways of preventing HIV.

This raises a number of disturbing points:

This test involved exposing actual human beings (yes, liberals, even Africans are as human as you are) to exposure to a fatal disease.

It involved over 9000 women, presumably half of whom were given an unproven product which was hoped (!) would prevent infection from this fatal disease, the other half of whom were given a placebo, that the researchers knew would provide no protection at all!!!

These women would have neccessarily been ones who the researchers knew were not yet infected. Then they were, presumably, encouraged to participate in the very practice that the researchers knew would put them at risk of contracting this disease.

The only way the researchers would know that the results were, "disappointing" was that many of these previously uninfected women became infected, and that an equal number from each group suffered infection.

All of which begs the question; did Dr Sheena McCormack, of the Medical Research Council volunteer herself to be a part of this test? Did Professor Jonathan Weber, from Imperial College London volunteer his wife or daughter for the same?